Is Bareback Porn Socially Irresponsible?
Share: 
19 November 2013 | 20 Comments
The blogger over at Manhunt Daily is saying that, with this picture of Mike Dozer and Charlie Harding, bareback porn has stepped over the line and is now socially irresponsible…
He thinks it’s inappropriate for barebackers to call people names for using condoms.
I find it rather funny that someone at Manhunt is using the term “socially irresponsible”. Dude – your boss gives money to Republicans who fight against gay rights. That’s way more irresponsible than a porn star’s tank top could ever be. But lets move past that point and think about what he’s saying…
The denialist approach (just for laughs)
Problem? What problem?
Mike’s t-shirt simply says that condoms are for vaginas – it’s an affirmation that straight people should be using condoms for pregnancy prevention. He’s standing with AHF, CalOSHA and others and speaking out against the rampant levels of barebacking in straight porn.
[Update: Actually, it seems a version of this is actually the truth – Joe Spunk apparently talked to Charlie Harding and they saw a commercial promoting safe sex that said “condoms are for pussies”. They laughed and concluded that since neither of them had a pussy then they didn’t need a condom. In other words the whole thing is a joke.]
Or…
It looks to me like the image has clearly been photoshopped. Mike would never wear a t-shirt like that.
My view…
The first question that comes to my mind is “do we even want porn to be socially responsible?” Personally I feel like that’s too heavy a burden to put on something like porn. I guess if you come from the perspective of condom porn you may think that porn is just entertainment. But bareback porn has its (post-AIDS crisis) roots in free speech. The bareback porn stars of the late ’90s were vilified for what they did on camera, but they did it because they believed that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they wanted with their own bodies.
The other thing is – the t-shirt is a bit of a joke. I mean calling someone a pussy is hardly a first class put-down. It’s very 3rd grade school yard, or Mrs. Slocombe. If you don’t have thick enough skin to deal with that t-shirt, then you have issues. After all the punches barebackers have taken over the years from “condom nazis” that t-shirt is barely a playful slap in the face in retaliation. So, sorry Manhunt – I’m not feeling your pain. I’ve been called FAR worse names than ‘pussy’ for my choice to bareback. Just deal with it.
So bottom line – IMHO, Mike Dozer’s t-shirt is just playful free speech.
The other side…
On the other hand, if bareback porn is allowed to be socially irresponsible we need to make sure that there is adequate information available for people to make informed choices about using condoms vs. barebacking. I do that via things like the HIV/AIDS & Sexual Health Forum on Breeding Zone, while Manhunt does sexual health advocacy via Manhunt Cares. I give them a big thumbs up for that initiative, though where they seem to be failing is in driving traffic to the site. If no one sees it, what’s the point? It seems like it’s just a CYA sort of initiative. They have a crazy amount of traffic – they need to do better integration of ManhuntCares.com into Manhunt.net, etc.
At the end of the day it was just a t-shirt. If you’re doing a good job of giving sexual health information to your audience then it’s really not a big deal. Get over it.
Check out some of the scenes with Mike Dozer. His body keeps changing, but he always looks hot!
To be fair, I don’t think my post was just about the t-shirt (which I still don’t think is a very clever and/or funny “joke”). People are focusing way too much on that fucking t-shirt. It was just one of MANY things that pissed me off.
I would have been perfectly fine if Mike Dozer and Brad Kalvo had filmed a bareback scene together. Have them talk dirty about “breeding”, do whatever they want… They are adults! They should have the sex they want to have!
However, it’s really insulting to people who do choose to use condoms that they remove one in the middle of the scene, and in the promo images, stare at it with a look of disgust on their faces. What is the point of including that plot element? What does it add to the fantasy?
My post was not an attack against bareback porn or any individual who chooses to have sex without a condom. It was merely an argument that bareback porn *does* become socially irresponsible when it shames condom users or makes them feel like the sex they’re having is less fulfilling. Personally, I feel like the Kalvo/Dozer scene does that, and when you don’t know the context of that t-shirt, it seems like it’s sending the same exact message.
Last but not least, there is literally no reason for you to bring up drama from SIX YEARS AGO to prove your point, but I do appreciate you calling more attention to the great work that Manhunt Cares does. They’ve opened up my mind significantly since I began working for Manhunt.
Good day, sir! Even though you seem to have missed my point – or perhaps I failed in demonstrating it – I thank you for the traffic you’re sending to our blog.
@Dewitt – Thanks for replying.
As a non-barebacker I think you’re missing one important fact about bareback porn – it’s often a reflection of real life. Yes, there’s usually a fantasy element, but just as example Paul Morris started out doing “documentary porn” (e.g. “What I Can’t See”). I’d say a lot of my followers have experienced that exact moment where there’s a level of frustration with the condom and you rip it off and think “good riddance” and continue on with the fucking. You’ll never convince a barebacker that taking real-life elements like those out of porn is a good thing.
And as far as ridicule – PLEASE… As I said – I’m not feeling your pain on that one. Try being in our shoes 5, 10, 15 years ago.
If you want to talk about shaming, let’s talk about the body issues that condom porn has inflicted on gay guys. The whole body beautiful thing that seems to go hand-in-hand with condom porn is really quite horrible. Regular guys think they’re not good enough to have sex. They feel completely inhibited. (I’ve seen this in action with my bf who for a long time bought into that whole mentality). Bareback porn is way more inclusive. It’s not about a guys body so much as it is about the sex. Bareback porn shows that great sex has nothing to do with “beauty”.
As as far as the “drama from 6 years ago”. During the 2012 election I commented to someone at Manhunt that now was the time for your founder to come out and support Obama. On the issue of gay rights the choice was crystal clear – Obama was for gay rights, Romney wasn’t. That didn’t happen so AFAIK he still supports and/or votes for people who work against our civil rights. I’m largely over it – I promote your sites, and you’ve got a lot of great people working for you (your company isn’t just about that one guy), but your founder continues to be a problem. It’s not a 6 year old problem, it’s a current problem. But it’s not really the issue here except to note that things like that are clearly socially irresponsible. Porn star t-shirts or taking a condom off in the middle of a scene -> not so much.
What’s socially irresponsible is to promote ‘stealthing’ or barebacking without *mutual* consent, as you did in a previous post.
Is giving guys instructions on how to get away with it really something you feel comfortable with? Don’t you think barebacking should be consensual?
@someone – it depends on the situation. Sex is often about power and control. And in some scenarios the bottom is really submitting to the will of the top. In scenarios like that, if HIV transmission isn’t in the equation because the top is confident he’s neg, or consistently undetectable, or the bottom is poz – then it may not be as non-consensual as you’re making it out to be.
The whole scene definitely seemed like an intentional jab at “the pussies” who use condoms,who aren’t liberated and open minded like the awesomely cool,free spirited barebackers.What most of these sites or studios consistently fail to mention is that though not all are many of their performers are already HIV+ so are way past caring anyway. Why is that by the way? If they’re so free and open about taking loads left and right,then why aren’t they open about their status as well?As for the body tyranny forced on the poor unfortunate viewers of condom porn,I doubt many “real” guys look like the raging gym bunnies Mike Dozer and Chris Harding are.
@CondomUsingPussy – Yeah, it was an intentional jab… Jokes often are. But it was a “ribbing” not a put down IMHO. In other words a light-hearted jab that you can’t take personally.
And for god’s sake – if you’re using a condom, you’re taking less risk, and people who don’t take risks are often labeled “pussies”. Compared to a oil rig worker, an office worker is a pussy. So what? Who cares?
And yes, I agree – poz guys should be more open about their status. But they’re not because of all the discrimination poz guys have faced initially. I just find it funny that at the slightest little bit of discrimination the people who were the aggressors before start whining like a… pussy 🙂
Yeah,It’s so awesome when disturbed and broken guys post things like Chicago – Need Poz Tops to Convert Me in your twitter feed!How you can think shit like that is okay?If you do it just shows what a twisted self destructive group you’re a part of.
“And in some scenarios the bottom is really submitting to the will of the top.”
In that case if the bottom is submitting why not openly bareback? Why the need for the stealth aspect?
” if HIV transmission isn’t in the equation because the top is confident he’s neg, or consistently undetectable”
I would be very angry if someone took it upon themselves to make that choice *on my behalf and without consulting me* because he was ‘confident’ he was neg. In your comment you seem to be suggesting that stealthing could be part of a previously agreed role-playing scene. There was no hint of that in your other post, which seemed very much like instructions on how to stealth ‘for real’. For me, it sits very oddly next to your call in this post for ‘adequate information available for people to make informed choices about using condoms vs. barebacking.’
Surely you can see the hypocrisy here? It doesn’t trouble you at all?
Porn will eventually be regulated like any other industry. California is a good first step. But there is more work to be done to ensure that the health and safety of these workers are ensured by law.
@someone – Stealthing is primarily about transmission of HIV. If the top can’t transmit HIV, then IMHO, it’s not really stealthing. There is no such thing as safe sex. I personally only care about 1) was real harm done?, and 2) was real harm intended? If the answer to those two items is ‘no’, then I don’t see the problem. I see no hypocrisy in that approach.
@Regular Guy – Doubt it. People have the right to do with their bodies as they see fit. Unfortunately we live in a society where risk is becoming less and less acceptable, and if anything bad happens it must be someone else’s fault. I can’t imagine taking no risk in my life. Not just in my sex life, but in many aspects of my life. I take calculated risks and am willing to deal with the problems if things don’t go as expected.
Porn is a commercial business, and the government has an obligation to regulate the safety of the employees just like any other business. The condom law in CA is likely only the start. And that’s just really good government.
I love the way HIV is described by you as a manageable disease and nothing to be afraid of or worried about when several sites are reporting a new and far more virulent strain of the HIV virus. So what happens if the meds that make it “no big deal” don’t work against it,where will your freedom of choice have gotten you then or will you just try harder to infect other men so you can take them with you?
@RegularGuy – And here is where I’d side with conservatives – When the government “protects” you from things you don’t want to be protected from, then the government has overstepped it’s mandate and is just invasive. Luckily this is not a gay thing – it affects straight porn watchers (and performers) just as much or more.
@CondomUsingPussy – Which would you rather have – a long boring life or a short life that’s full of excitement? Different people will answer that question differently and that’s OK. Let’s not forget that there were people who remained bareback sluts through the worst of the AIDS crisis. Unless they were immune they long since died. But they chose a short adventurous life and it was their right to do so.
People can fuck however they want in private. But once it touches the stream of commerce, it must be regulated. A window washer may want to just use rope and a bucket. But the government requires more for the safety of the worker.
@Regular Guy – “MUST”??? Absolutely not. There’s no constitutional requirement that porn must be regulated. Libertarians would disagree strongly with you. “Can” might be a better word, but it gets mirky. What happens if two guys film themselves having sex and then sell it to a porn site? It started as amateur. Or what about “documentary porn”?
It’s one thing to regulate the safety of someone who’s maintaining high voltage power lines. That’s not something the would do if it weren’t for having it as a job. But sex is something almost everyone engages in. Regulating porn is a bit like firing delivery guys for jaywalking during business hours – but it’s OK when they’re not working.
And these days doing porn isn’t a career – at most it’s marketing for a career as an escort. And guess what – escorts bareback too 😉
Barebacking is real. It’s honest. Changing your behavior just because there’s a camera rolling is fake.
Everything about film is fake (porn or not), but it’s still regulated for safety. And guys making a private movie and then selling it are still regulated (i.e., it would be against the law to sell it if one guy was under the permitted age for porn, even if the act of sex itself was not statutory rape). If it touches commerce, it can be regulated.
Barebacking can be real, and it can be honest. But if it’s commercial, it can be regulated.
@Rawtop
For me stealthing is equivalent to rape. Sex requires the consent of both partners, and wearing a condom (or not) is one of the most important things to discuss and consent to, precisely because it COULD have serious health implications.
An analogy: if you came upon a guy passed out at a house party and decided to fuck him, you may not have caused ‘harm’ in the sense of transmitting HIV (provided you are, err, ‘confident’ you are negative) but you did cause harm in the sense of violating boundaries and acting without consent. Having respect for your partners as human beings is important.
I just can’t believe the lengths some poz guys will go to make HIV look desirable.
Almost fell for it except for the fact that it drains the lifeforce of our lives and our tax dollars. I can’t think of more self-centered lifestyle, which is saying something when you know how gays can really be.
It’s so funny how they justify sexual racism yet cry and whine about others sexual preference for wanting to live past 40. (Ironically gay black men[my race] have the highest rate of HIV yet I’ve yet to see them half as much as other races in poz porn).
So tell you what. You come up with harmless strain of AIDS and then we’ll justify your lifestyle.
I love taking thick, creamy, seemingly endless loads much more than the next guy, but I love myself too much to be a burden to my loved ones all for sleazy guys who don’t care about me much less find me generally unattractive.
This won’t stop me from watching BB porn though.
@Wow – The poz guys I know are just as alive and vibrant as the neg guys I know. And with the exception of those who were diagnosed well before ARVs or didn’t get tested until it was too late, they live past 40 quite easily.
I semi-agree with you on the cost issue, but in a way it’s spurring much needed scientific research. I just wish the pharma companies weren’t so mercurial. I’m not sure they’re the best people to receive the big money for scientific research.
As far as self-centered – maybe, but I view sex as the gay sport. Do you call the straight guys who drink beer and watch Sunday football self-centered? They sort of are, but to a degree being self-centered (a little) is healthy.
Smoking, over eating, etc. are all just as bad as barebacking – perhaps worse (in the case of smoking). He who is without sin can cast the first stone.
I didn’t say anything was wrong with barebacking.
I said I had an issue with the justification( and sometimes glorification) of receiving and spreading a terminal disease around intentionally.
You can always stop smoking and overeating years after the addiction has kicked in place and still live a healthy life. As for HIV, one wrong load and that’s your ending.
I’m all ears on how to navigate the BB world safely as well as the Sero world incase I just jump on the wrong cock. If HIV was glamorous as some say then more guys would be getting it.
I simply cannot afford that liability.